Last Call Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp-05
review-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp-05-genart-lc-holmberg-2015-04-11-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2015-04-20
Requested 2015-04-06
Authors Johannes Merkle , Manfred Lochter
I-D last updated 2015-04-11
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -05 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -06 by Christer Holmberg
Assignment Reviewer Christer Holmberg
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 05 (document currently at 06)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2015-04-11
review-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp-05-genart-lc-holmberg-2015-04-11-00

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART,
please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>



Document:

draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp-05



Reviewer:                           Christer Holmberg



Review Date:                     11 April 2015



IETF LC End Date:             20 April 2015



IETF Telechat Date:         N/A



Summary:        The document is well written, and almost ready for publication.
I do, however, have a couple of comments (see below).



Major Issues: None



Minor Issues:



Q1_10-1: In the IANA Considerations section, IANA is requested to register new
values. However, it is not mentioned in which registry the new values will be
registered.







Editorial nits:



Q1_GENERAL-1:              Regarding reference, sometimes you say “RFC XXXX
[RFCXXXX]”, sometimes “RFC XXXX” and sometimes “[RFCXXXX]”.



I think you should be consistent, and e.g. use “RFC XXXX [RFCXXXX]” on first
occurrence, and then “RFC XXXX”.



In some cases “[RFCXXXX]” is ok, though, e.g. in section 9.4 where you say “

SNMP-USER-BASED-SM-MIB [RFC3414].”.